About your Search

20130201
20130209
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
democrats were saying, look if we -- dianne feinstein, if we don't get this, it's going to be a problem. you don't want it to be more of a public problem with john brennan than it already is going to be, but the hearing is already i think shaping up to be a debate. among democrats and republicans, but a lot of folks -- should we be telling -- you don't want them to turn into an all-out back and forth over this. if you give us this document, it might not be great for john brennan, but it seems likely we're not going to hold this up. it seems like he winds up getting confirmed. they did it under dur es. if -- in a perfect world i don't think the white house would have chosen to just sort of put this documentation out there. the timing of it suggests they wouldn't. >> well, let's take a look, a quick look, at john brennan back at the woodrow wilson center back in april last april with his explanation for why he believed that drones do conform to principles of humanity and here's his words. >> targeted strikes conform to the principle of humanity, which requires us to use weapons that will not i
group on the senate intelligence committee, not the chair, dianne feinstein who we'll be talking to tomorrow. but ron widen is asking this question and down at the retreat in annapolis, he told our own mike viqueira, every american has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them. >> you know, this is an issue that puts president obama at odds with his base. when he came into the white house, he was very critical of the bush administration for waterboarding, for enhanced -- he called for more transparency. the administration has not been transparent. it's only because of a leak that we know as much as we do about the targeting of american, how it's done, when it's allowed. and that's why we're going to have a discussion about this and that's also why it does not imperil brennan's nomination. because the people who are most distressed about there are part of the core democratic groups that are going to vote with the president i think when it comes to john brennan. but it is an opportunity to have a conversation that we have not had yet. >> and o
is more precise and careful than most people imagine. i notice that chairman feinstein in the course of her rashgsz side-stepping classified information made that point that from what the committee sees, the targeting is very precise. >> do you think that the president should have the sole phenyl authority over this. we're told by public reports that there is actually a kill list and that the president goes through names and the intelligence himself. >> should there be some other check and ballot ability of a president, any president, to make life and death decisions over americans who are connected to terrorist groups or are suspected of being connected to terrorist groups. >> i think that's a tough question. i think it does bare examination. he clearly is responsible and accountab accountable. since lyndon johnson did get involved. since then presidents typically have not gotten into the targeting loop that is choosing specific targets. >> that is a departure from past practice, and i think the idea of looking at a court or some other thing inserted into the decision process has so
. >> and the chair of the senate intelligence committee, dianne feinstein, who said that she did receive this memo when congress first asked last year for better explanation, still wants to see the actual legal orders and the white house just told me they're not going to turn those over because they feel that that is basically lawyer-client privilege, privilege between the president's counsel in the justice department and him. the other thing here is she did defend the use of this for the killing of al alakhi in yemen because he was involved in supposedly the plot for the christmas bombing. >> look, there seems to be a consensus within government that he was a bad guy and that we were justified in taking him out. on the other hand, critics will say, he was an american citizen. he had never been charged with a crime. >> they may have been right about him, but what kind of precedent does that set down the road when maybe it's not president obama in office. others who might have -- even other ideas about who is a threat and who is not. >> mike, i know you're going to have more on this later on nightl
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)